fallen prey, during the last quarter of a century, to a lopsidednview of its own nature, one that can be best expressed by thenvulgar but telling byword “Anything goes.” From all branchesnof knowledge and literature a body of writing has emergednwhose shallowness is often surpassed only by its offensiveness,nbut which is shielded by an ideological dogmatism that hasnestablished a mixture of scientism, materialism and irrationalitynas the reigning liberal philosophy in America. It goes withoutnsaying that the criticism which comes from the Liberal Culturenoriginates from an ideologically committed point of view. Thus,nthe “objectivity” of which it boasts spells something veryndifferent than its meaning in ordinary semantics.nIt occurred to us that in order to challenge this state ofnthings and restore a balance we must first create a frameworknof contrasting judgments and set them forth. We see our tasknas assessing books primarily on the basis of their ideas andnmessages and measuring them against our values, ideology,ncommitments and beliefs.nThese judgments should be personal, but not subjective.nWe have little esteem for reviewers who do not know how toninterpret a book other than through the adjectives “bad,” “good,”n”beautiful” or “funny.” They qualify in our eyes as newspapermennand women who report on books, plays, movies. Everynbook, play or movie, aside from being good or bad, performs anmoral, cognitive and cultural function. It has an impact onnminds. It plays a social role and if it has any power at all, itncontributes to cultural trends that affect human lives. Thus,nto deal with cultural facts as “fun” or “entertainment” only isnChronicles of CultttrcnVol. 1, No. 1, September 1977nThe Feminine Novel of the SeventiesnVol 1, No. 2, November 1977nThe Literary Season of Venom andnMuddle in AmericanTyrmand: Comment; Maloney on Galbraith;nTrafton on Cheever; Fox on Davidson; Glassnon Percy; Scott on Vidal; Manion onnDickstein; Commendables; In Focus; Wastenof Money.nnnto avoid the central function of the endeavor. A critic, ornreviewer, who sees his duties fulfilled by giving us a briefingnabout the author, plot and, eventually, his own sense of what isn”convincing,” “boring” or “amusing,” is a half-formed critic,nunworthy of attention. A critic who does not bother to clarifynwhat the author says, what he wants to say, what he prefersnnot to say, and finally, what influence his saying may haveneven if absorbed by only one person on earth—such a criticnstrikes us as a hack critic, merely a producer of slogans. Suchncritics often seek to project an image oT personal evenhandednessnwhich, in the end, turns their work into nothingness.nI, .n our view, cultural criticism should put culturalnfacts—books, plays, movies, intellectual debates, issues andntrends—into a philosophical, moral and ideological perspective.nAnything short of this goal does a disservice to culture. It is annever-ending labor. We, at the Chronicles of Culture, recognizenthe inescapable fact that progress is not an inevitable characteristicnof culture and hardly exists in the arts. If it were so,nWarhol would he per definitio a “better” painter than Giotto,nand Norman Mailer automatically a “better” writer thannDostoevski—a silly presumption and simply not true. Therefore,nthe answer to this rather trifling observation is to evaluatenthe new with the help of the oldest and best tested criteria ofnthe Judeo-Christian civilization.n—Leopold TyrmandnChronicles of Culturen